Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17552 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8729 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One can marry whomever they wish, and it can be recognized by their respective religious faith, community, family, or only by those involved. However if one wishes to marry legally, one must do so according to the laws set forth by the state.
When making laws, those laws must be reasonable, and must treat all persons equally. Your gender restriction fails to provide a legitimate, compelling state interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to the marriages of same sex couples, in violation of the due process clauses of the constitution.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8730 Aug 28, 2013
A subsequent case, Gill, 2012:

"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate."

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8731 Aug 28, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>In fact, I never compared homosexuals "with Neo-Nazis and the KK[K]", in fact I claim many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman.
The point is the victims, the artistic freedom of the photographer, baker and florist, and their freedom not to custom same sex marriage. You claimed it wouldn't affect our marriage; its affecting three marriages and counting. Every time they sue, it proves same sex marriage causes social harm.
If a photographer or baker, or some other sort of business person is allowed not to serve LGBT people because it offends his Christian principles, so then should he also be allowed to refuse to serve Jewish people or Muslim people, or Hindu people or atheist people, because they do not believe that Jesus Of Nazareth is the Messiah, and thus offends his religious beliefs ?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#8732 Aug 28, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
When making laws, those laws must be reasonable, and must treat all persons equally. Your gender restriction fails to provide a legitimate, compelling state interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment to the marriages of same sex couples, in violation of the due process clauses of the constitution.
"reasonable?" by whose standard? Mine, yours?

...and can you provide a "gender restricting law?"

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#8733 Aug 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
One can marry whomever they wish, and it can be recognized by their respective religious faith, community, family, or only by those involved. However if one wishes to marry legally, one must do so according to the laws set forth by the state.
Exactly. Equal protection of the law is required by the 14th amendment.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8734 Aug 28, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. Equal protection of the law is required by the 14th amendment.
The trouble is people cannot agree on what that means.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8735 Aug 29, 2013
In Egypt, the military overturns elections; in California that's the job of the courts. The left stands for suing Christians in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington; whenever they refuse to participate in same sex weddings. Then, they justify the burning of Churches in Egypt.

Same sex marriage is anti-christian.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8736 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In Egypt, the military overturns elections; in California that's the job of the courts. The left stands for suing Christians in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington; whenever they refuse to participate in same sex weddings. Then, they justify the burning of Churches in Egypt.
Same sex marriage is anti-christian.
Just Blame it on the Gays for getting married, right Brian?

With every post you make......you blame Gays and Lesbians for something.......what a bigot you are!!!

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#8737 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In Egypt, the military overturns elections; in California that's the job of the courts. The left stands for suing Christians in New Mexico, Oregon and Washington; whenever they refuse to participate in same sex weddings. Then, they justify the burning of Churches in Egypt.
Same sex marriage is anti-christian.
How can it be "anti-Christian, if their are Christian denominations such as ELCA & UCC, that support it ?

The entire reason that there are different Christian denominations at all is because of different beliefs and practices in Christendom.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8738 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In fact, I never compared homosexuals "with Neo-Nazis and the KK[K]",
Brian, you have made direct comparisons between homosexuality, the Neo-Nazis, and the KKK. Your comparisons are cowardly, but the least that you could do is to admit that you made such infantile comparisons.
Brian_G wrote:
in fact I claim many homosexuals defend marriage as one man and one woman.
Yet, you lack the intellect to offer a compelling state interest served by such a restiriction that would render it constitutional.
Brian_G wrote:
The point is the victims, the artistic freedom of the photographer, baker and florist, and their freedom not to custom same sex marriage.
Actually, dingbat, you've yet to prove there are victims. Is a photographer's artistic freedom victimized by a bride's color palate? Artists regularly don't have complete control, the same is true of businessmen. Your argument is witless.
Brian_G wrote:
You claimed it wouldn't affect our marriage; its affecting three marriages and counting.
How, be specific.
Brian_G wrote:
Every time they sue, it proves same sex marriage causes social harm.
How? be specific.

You are an idiot.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8739 Aug 29, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
The entire reason that there are different Christian denominations at all is because of different beliefs and practices in Christendom.
Do you really expect Brian to understand a point that subtle? They seem to have trouble with reality on a Second Grade level.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8740 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Just Blame it on the Gays for getting married, right Brian? With every post you make......you blame Gays and Lesbians for something.......what a bigot you are!!!
Many gays have married under the same laws as everyone else; Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for examples. Many homosexuals defend one man and one woman marriage.

I don't blame gays for same sex marriage; I blame the left. They are the ones suing Christians for living by their beliefs.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8741 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Many gays have married under the same laws as everyone else; Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for examples. Many homosexuals defend one man and one woman marriage.
I don't blame gays for same sex marriage; I blame the left. They are the ones suing Christians for living by their beliefs.
Brian, please quit being an imbecile.

Can you identify a state interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman that would render such a restriction constitutional, or are you admitting that you aren't terribly bright, and that you are both a bigoted and hateful person?

It's an either/or question. One of the two statements is true. Which is it?

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#8742 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Many gays have married under the same laws as everyone else; Oscar Wilde and Meredith Baxter for examples. Many homosexuals defend one man and one woman marriage.
I don't blame gays for same sex marriage; I blame the left. They are the ones suing Christians for living by their beliefs.
Yea, Yea, we know.....Oscar and Meredith married the opposite-sex, so in your eyes ALL Gays and Lesbians should do the same thing to make Brian feel better......NOT!!!

Yea, you keep saying that "MANY" Gays and Lesbians defend marriage as one man and one woman, but you WON'T give any evidence to back your claim......and though there are some, just like there are "MANY" heterosexuals who support Marriage Equality......at least 54% in Washington, 52% in Maryland, roughly 52% in Maine and another 52% in Minnesota.......so what percentage of Gays and Lesbians defend marriage as being defined as 1 man and 1 woman?

Sorry Brian, but the left ISN'T suing those supposed Christians.......those Christians want to DISCRIMINATE against honest, law abiding, tax paying American citizens who just happen to be Gay or Lesbian and want a PUBLIC service provided to them.......and the law says that!!!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8743 Aug 29, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
Yea, you keep saying that "MANY" Gays and Lesbians defend marriage as one man and one woman, but you WON'T give any evidence to back your claim......
Brian never gives evidence to back any claim. They are a dullard of the first order.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8744 Aug 29, 2013
First they claim same sex marriage won't affect you, then if it passes they can sue you because you're a bigot for opposing their political goals.

Nice try.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8745 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
First they claim same sex marriage won't affect you, then if it passes they can sue you because you're a bigot for opposing their political goals.
Nice try.
Brian, most of the jurisdictions where the lawsuits are pending don't allow gay marriage.

Grow a brain.

Should a lunch counter owner be able to limit their clientele strictly to caucasians? Of course not, that would be racist. Only an idiot would suggest a business owner can project their moral beliefs onto clients.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#8746 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
First they claim same sex marriage won't affect you, then if it passes they can sue you because you're a bigot for opposing their political goals.
Nice try.
You poor thing - you are so confused.

A business owner will only be sued if they violate the rules under which they obtained and maintain their business license.

So, if you refuse to serve black folks, or gay folks, prepare for a lawsuit. That's a GOOD thing. Unconstitutional and illegal discrimination against minorities is a blight, and one society rightly punishes.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#8747 Aug 29, 2013
These Christians didn't refuse to serve homosexuals or blacks. Loving v Virginia is US Supreme Court precedent for male/female marriage. The issue is a business owner's right not to attend a same sex wedding. I'm against that kind of compulsion; reeks of fascism.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#8748 Aug 29, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
The issue is a business owner's right not to attend a same sex wedding. I'm against that kind of compulsion; reeks of fascism.
Brian, you are an idiot. At issue is whether a public business, which is classified as a place of public accommodation, can discriminate against people based solely upon their sexuality.

The point of a business is to generate revenue, so if the business owner is not an imbecile, they would not discriminate based upon their personal political or religious views. If they do so in a jurisdiction that prohibits such discrimination, then they should be prepared to be sued, because they have broken the law.

If you weren't an idiot, you would understand this.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr positronium 17,306
News Gay Cakes Are Not a Constitutional Right 1 hr Frankie Rizzo 824
News Connecticut sees - gay baby boom' 1 hr Kurt 31
News US gay couple sues after getting 'hateful' flye... 4 hr Wondering 2
News $20 million worth of intolerance (Nov '08) Wed a-voice-in-paradise 409
News Landlord Caught Having Sex In Tenants's Bed (Dec '16) Mon Suezanne 13
News Kentucky Baptists issue threat regarding hiring... Jan 15 Hudson 94
More from around the web